Frames decide everything
Recently in Skolkovo, President of Russia D.A. Medvedev held a meeting in the framework of the project "Open Government" on the issue of training and formation of personnel in the system of state. service.
I don’t undertake to discuss the competence of the expert community included in this project, but I would like to express my opinion on professionalism and competence not only in the state. service, but also in the political system, which is the basis for the work of the entire state system of the country. In the recent past I have already written on this topic, which remains relevant today. In order not to bother dear readers and not to take time away from them to search for an article on the Internet, I’ll give the main theses specifically for the Military Review.
From the very beginning I want to say that the emergence of professional politicians in Russia is an immutable requirement of our time. It is unlikely that anyone would argue that today the country should be governed by such people - professionals. Even from the point of view of everyday logic, no one doubts that professional teachers, pilots, highly qualified doctors are needed. Even the plumber must be a professional, otherwise you will not end up with problems. But for some reason, when the question of professionalism in politics arises, many immediately have a doubt: is it possible to raise this question at all? Why not? Maybe we are afraid to hurt someone personally?
Apparently, we are afraid, since so little attention is paid to the topic of a personnel shortage in politics and in the state. service. At the same time, it is curious that the problem of corruption among officials did not decline in their articles and speeches, except that it was lazy.
It turns out that the word "corrupt", addressed to the official, sounds less offensive than the words "amateur", "non-professional."
Everyone knows that for several dozen professionals in the ranks of the current State Duma there are several hundred people who are very far from politics, therefore, they cannot be called professionals. Namely, they should be engaged in writing the laws by which we will live. I get scared at the thought of it, and you?
But much more terrible is the fact that almost no one dares to speak openly about this, no one uses some of the posts and names with the prefixes "fake", "strained", "thieves" and so on. As if there are none at all.
Of course, I do not idealize the political sphere and the people working in it in other countries, too. Even in the most developed, which we are so inclined to consider as an example to follow.
Do I believe that it is possible to eradicate cronyism and lack of professionalism at all? Of course no. But to drastically change the existing ratio of personnel in watered. system and in the state. service in favor of professionals can and should be.
At one time, in a similar way, the question was posed by the then Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Kozak. There were even developed criteria for evaluating regional level managers, which contain a rather large list of indicators. But how the experiment ended, nobody knows. In addition, the criteria developed lacked a scientific justification.
Now that the issue of professionalism in politics has become acute, the topic must be returned. And the results of the fact that he has become aggravated, we see on the screens every day, we read about these results in various media. These are rallies, growing discontent of the population, and the strained victory of “United Russia” in the last parliamentary elections, and the appearance on the political arena of pseudo-Diozal characters (or simply adventurers and charlatans from politics), which some of our citizens are ready to follow. But such leaders can only be followed by complete disillusionment with existing political parties and people, into these parties, including the so-called parliamentary opposition.
Today, the authorities are faced with a very specific task - with the direct participation and control of society, to develop such an algorithm of actions and selection of personnel that would minimize political risks. This is very important, since not one person is responsible for the risks in politics, and even, for example, not one party, but the state, all the people who experience these risks on their shoulders. Therefore, the measure of responsibility of politicians is disproportionately greater than that of any other specialist.
And there is already such an algorithm. It includes competency requirements and policy competence. At first glance, these terms seem abstract, far from real life and not measurable. But let's look more specifically. Competences are those obligatory for the policy requirements that it must meet. And competence is the real level of competence that a particular politician has. In our case, competencies include three components: the philosophy of politics and ideological doctrines; acmeological knowledge (human knowledge bank); Acmeological technology (technology development). Every modern politician must know all this today.
To some, this may seem to be merely scientific-like concepts, far from practical life. But this is absolutely not the case. What is the philosophy of politics? It is expressed in specific ideological doctrines. At the level of society, ideological doctrines are the guidelines for its development, designated in goals and objectives. Usually such doctrines are constitutional. We have this expressed in the article of the Constitution that the Russian Federation is a social state. However, there are also different models of the welfare state. In the USA, for example, one model, in the Scandinavian countries - another. And if we recall that the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted at the time when the monetarist model was introduced into our economy, then it is clear that in practice only the name of the social state remains. That is why politicians should at least understand to some extent the issues of the philosophy of politics, focused not only on the experience of some other countries, but also on the specifics of real Russian reality. That is, a policy that would be focused on the interests of the majority, and not a minority of citizens.
The question arises: are there enough shocks for our power? Does she understand that we stand at the line after which either the development of the political system begins, or the government will calm down and, underestimating the importance of the events, will finally lose the trust of the people and the opportunity to constructively change the political system for the better?
One of the goals of improving the political system is the emergence of professional politicians and civil servants.
This is the modern Russian politician who should understand, and, moreover, to understand at the level of professional knowledge and technology.
In addition to everything else, this knowledge concerns the development opportunities of each particular politician. After all, every person has his own potential, level of development, psychological resource. Today, proceeding from the prevailing political mentality, it is difficult to expect that any politician will want to voluntarily find out and recognize his weaknesses, his “ceiling”. But I’m just sure that in time this will be a harsh necessity for them, from which one cannot escape. Orientation to development is the only possible option to remain in politics. And the absolute majority of people who somehow got into the clip of politics as a professional activity want to survive. The sooner they realize this, the better.
Yes, actually, there is very little time left for awareness. The announced program of modernization of the country will not bypass the political sphere. Obviously, people who have a strong professional background should govern the country in the process of modernization, and even more so by a renewed Russia. Especially today, when you have to solve problems of increased complexity in a very short time. And there will be no other conditions.
Information